Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

the 'crucifixtion' of William Jennings Bryan (Inherit the Wind)

William Jennings Bryan was in fact a 'great American'...who fought for some of the most progressive causes of his day for the common man.

I would say he did FAR FAR FAR more for the 'common man' than Charles Darwin and the 20th century fallout from his theory ever dreamed of doing. In fact one could argue they are diameterically opposed from a philosophical viewpoint.

Real history turned into fiction is always a problematic issue. There is always the need to spice it up so to speak, and in the end a work of fiction winds up playing to every stereotyped ignorance one can imagine....dissiminated of course thru all the 'proper channels'.

Then there's 'reality TV'....sigh......

"Let us, at least, dig and seek till we have discovered our own opinions. The dogmas we really hold are far more fantastic, and, perhaps, far more beautiful than we think. In the course of these essays I fear that I have spoken from time to time of rationalists and rationalism, and that in a disparaging sense. Being full of that kindliness which should come at the end of everything, even of a book, I apologize to the rationalists even for calling them rationalists. There are no rationalists. We all believe fairy-tales, and live in them. Some, with a sumptuous literary turn, believe in the existence of the lady clothed with the sun. Some, with a more rustic, elvish instinct, like Mr. McCabe, believe merely in the impossible sun itself. Some hold the undemonstrable dogma of the existence of God; some the equally undemonstrable dogma of the existence of the man next door."

One of the fundamental fallacies of your position, and GKC's, is that everything that cannot be 100% demonstrated, proved, is therefore , in some sense, on a equivalent footing.

Whereas we can indeed establish that the likelihood that the guy next door exists if far greater than that there is a divine super being.

This because it is consistent with so many observations, which would require explanation if he didn't actually exist.

Whereas in the context of modern well-established understanding, God is a problem, a strange proposition, that needs to be justified, not in any way an effective explanation for anything.

So that quote simply demonstrates the ignorance of the speaker. Don't feel too bad, that is an ancient and common fallacy.

If you want to get anywhere in argument here you will need something a lot more sophisticated than that.

Presenting such arguments here simply demonstrates that you are similarly ignorant, ie you don't seem to have any arguments which hold water.

Darwin never claimed to be fighting for justice, just for truth. He made a massive contribution to our understanding of reality, which, among other things, has become of fundamental importance in the fight against disease-causing organisms, which God, if such a being existed, would have been responsible for, and thereby Darwin should be given some credit for the survival of everyone who has been successfully treated by modern anti-biotics. Rescuing people from the effects of the evil actions of your God.

Of course Darwin and William Jennings Bryan are arguably "diametrically opposed from a philosophical viewpoint". So what?

Darwin was a honest seeker of truth, who advanced human understanding, WJB was a politician with quirky ideas who made little real positive contribution to society.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

No, I came to make a point that not even I could be bothered to know/learn every event and name in US history.

If I did come to brag about how much I supposedly don't care, what difference would it make to you?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Sure, you probably built a dam somewhere relatively important at some time. Knowledge of that would not do anything for me.

Knowing the history of rationalism? Different case.

And since your laws have 0 bearing on Canada, I couldn't care less about any of them, or the people involved in them. So don't think this guy is at all special to 99% of the world. Much like that Parks woman, he's irrelevant. Darwin actually did something for everyone.

Sure, you probably built a dam somewhere relatively important at some time. Knowledge of that would not do anything for me.

Knowing the history of rationalism? Different case.

And since your laws have 0 bearing on Canada, I couldn't care less about any of them, or the people involved in them. So don't think this guy is at all special to 99% of the world. Much like that Parks woman, he's irrelevant. Darwin actually did something for everyone.

Darwin wrote a book. In itself it was nothing special. The discoveries that were made from where he started however...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

That's a tad different from "know/learn every event and name in US history".

Are you seriously losing your grasp on reality, or are you just fucking with me... cuz the words in quotations have been my meaning for nearly all of this thread, and I think it would be obvious to most people that they are. I quoted vastet's post with them, and then I said them myself. No, I don't think I could possibly have made it more clear.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

And since your laws have 0 bearing on Canada, I couldn't care less about any of them, or the people involved in them. So don't think this guy is at all special to 99% of the world. Much like that Parks woman, he's irrelevant. Darwin actually did something for everyone.

NAFTA.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

My point is that this so-called special event was special only to people in one country out of 180 or however many countries in the world. Noone else, nowhere else, ever. And it really wasn't all that special even to that country when one considers the state of evolution education in the US today.

That's a tad different from "know/learn every event and name in US history".

Are you seriously losing your grasp on reality, or are you just fucking with me... cuz the words in quotations have been my meaning for nearly all of this thread, and I think it would be obvious to most people that they are. I quoted vastet's post with them, and then I said them myself. No, I don't think I could possibly have made it more clear.

So you agreed with the meaning of Vastet's words but you disagree with the words themselves?

Interesting...and somehow I'm the one losing my grasp on reality.

What, again, does that have to do with you not knowing (or caring to learn) about a significant person in history? Look up his "Cross of Gold" speech.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

My point is that this so-called special event was special only to people in one country out of 180 or however many countries in the world. Noone else, nowhere else, ever. And it really wasn't all that special even to that country when one considers the state of evolution education in the US today.

OK, I see your point and it is fully valid. We all have to choose what we are into. For example, I don't really expect that you have the same taste in music as I do. Unless you do but we can have that conversation in some other thread.

Where I see the wires getting crossed here is that you only have a name. He is some guy and really, big whoop there.

What would make him important enough for you to pay attention to?

How about being the first person to prosecute a court case on evolution vs. creation? I don't see where anyone else specified that and it was amiss for me to leave that detail out. Basically, he was the Michael Behe of the 1930's.

Granted, that still might not seem all that big of a deal but all the decades before, the discussion was largely in the academic world. However, the Scopes Monkey Trial was where the real public discussion began.

Sure, I don't expect the people of Iran to give a shit but for those in the pits of the discussion about why theism is bad, the matter is one that is worth knowing.

And since your laws have 0 bearing on Canada, I couldn't care less about any of them, or the people involved in them. So don't think this guy is at all special to 99% of the world. Much like that Parks woman, he's irrelevant. Darwin actually did something for everyone.

NAFTA.

NAFTA is a trade agreement that Canada and the US negotiated in the 80's. It is not an American law that has any bearing on Canada.

"Sure, I don't expect the people of Iran to give a shit but for those in the pits of the discussion about why theism is bad, the matter is one that is worth knowing." You've given me 0 reason to care. I am in no way affected by this case. It has no bearing on any country but the US. And contrary to popular American belief, you are not the centre of the universe.

<snicker>

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

I agree we believe in many fairy tales and live in them. Just look at expansive capitalism, national superiority complex, speculative finances, lottery and so on.

But that doesn't make them any more real, including gods. It shows we can go a long way believing them, even if they're completely false.

Btw, I just watched the film Inherit the Wind. Nice film, some my Christian friends should see it. Although, I regret there wasn't anybody like NonStampCollector in that court room, or he'd show some real Bible-bashing and nobody would take Bible seriously in court ever after.